The wind knocked out of our sails

Is Britain falling out of love with wind energy? Inasmuch as Britain was ever in love with wind — it was hardly an all-encompassing passion — it certainly looks like some of the shine may be wearing off. Earlier this month, over a hundred Conservative MPs put their names to a letter to David Cameron calling for a reduction in subsidies for wind energy schemes. As a result, according to the Guardian this week, wind energy companies are ‘reconsidering’ planned investments in the UK amount to billions of pounds.

The MPs’ concerns are easily understandable. Wind farms tend to be sited in rural areas and are often unpopular with their neighbours, many of whom moved to the countryside for peace, quiet and bucolic views. A sudden invasion of cyclopean, ever-moving rotor towers is hardly likely to be welcomed. A quick look at any political map of the UK will reveal that these areas are overwhelmingly Conservative constituency, and any MP has a duty to reflect the views of his or her constituents, especially over anything which might affect their majority.

Even Donald Trump is getting in on the action. Never known for self-effacement, the oddly-coiffeured American tycoon has pledged to oppose plans for an offshore windfarm some 3km off the coast of his Scottish estate, threatening to bring armies of lawyers into the field with imagery that brings to mind the battle of Culloden, albeit with smart suits rather than kilts.

We’ve come to expect this sort of opposition, but the wind industry’s threats are somewhat worrying. Rather than explain the energy benefits of wind turbines, put forward their plans for larger generation capacities offshore than onshore, explain the concept of capacity factors (the percentage of time any particular turbine can be expected to generate electricity) or point out that you’d need to have pretty good eyesight to even see something that’s 3km out to sea, let alone be disturbed by it, to instantly threaten to pull out if the sweeteners of subsidy are withdrawn smacks of weakness of will rather than the confident swashbuckling spirit we’ve been told to expect of business.

Germany and Denmark already generate a larger proportion of their electricity from wind farms than the UK. That’s not fairy dust or fictional electricity: that’s real electrons flowing along real cables and illuminating real light bulbs. They’re obviously serious about it; Britain has a better wind resource than either.

Onshore turbines are always going to be controversial. Whether or not they’re ugly is a matter of opinion and the wishes of the people who have to live near them obviously has to be given more prominence than those of metropolitan types (like myself) who drive past them once or twice a year. But there does seem to be some skewing of attitudes towards the countryside. It’s not just some pretty backdrop to a tranquil lifestyle. We live off the land. It’s a resource. Moreover, the way the air moves over the landscape is just as much a resource as the crops you can grow on it or the animals you can graze on it.

We absolutely need a mix of energy generation resources. We cannot rely on any single one. A wholesale shift to nuclear isn’t practical and it’s folly to think that we can generate all our energy from renewables; equally, we know, from the point of view of dwindling resources if nothing else, that we can’t keep making most of our electricity from fossil fuels, and we don’t have enough land to grow renewable wood for combustion. We have to have wind power, *along with everything else*. The sooner this fact is recognised, the sooner we can get on with minimising the impact of installations and building the damn things.

Stuart, you are wrong on this one. If wind farms are so good, cost effective and efficient! Remove the government feed in tariff (subsidy) completely and see how many greedy little start-up new businesses sprout up to bribe farmers into erecting them on their land. I think you will find that no one will erect them because they are not cost effective. They are only cost effective because of subsidies, imposed to meet EU metrics. Now, don’t get me started on metrics, and how they are ruining every aspect of Britain, from our Hospitals to our Schools etc….

First we are not running out of fossil fuels. We are sitting on top of massive gas and coal resources.
Next wind turbines just do not work as they are unpredictable to plus minus 18% and are incapable of a base load. To compensate we will need fast acting gas power stations and to waste energy at some stage matching oscillating demand. Offshore turbines means high cable losses to population centres. The WT just pushes up electricity costs and calls for additional expenditure on the grid running to £ billions. Manufacturing thus has higher costs for a fad which will have no effect on
global warming.
Better to invest in new techniques for Co2 capture and re utilisation

Mark – has the hit the nail right on the head – subsidies skew markets – even worse with wind subsidies via higher tariffs where our children are going to be paying for this in years to come. Energy supply should be left to market forces. If you want to speed up the supply of these for energy security reasons then either
1 . Build the wind farms via direct public ownership
and/or
2. Add additional taxes to non-green production so as to skew the market in their favour (like a subsidy in reverse but we pay now rather than in the future!)
Subsidies produce waste – fact!

Having long suspected that the economics of wind energy do not actually stack up without subsidies, is it any suprise that we see this sector ‘wobbling’ as the subsidies are threatened here and in the US.
The following headline also appeared today “The Scottish port of Leith and the English town of Hartlepool are vying for a £150 million investment from Spanish wind-turbine manufacturer Gamesa, which plans to build a turbine and blades plant in the U.K.” One has to wonder how much our politicians are willing to ‘invest’ to subsidise this job creation deal and therefore yet again twist the economics of this sector. There is no denying that you can produce energy from wind and the battle of NIMBYism isn’t going to get any easier – but the point is that we cannot put all our energy eggs in one basket. As Sir Paul Nurse expounded in the The Richard Dimbleby Lecture, as engineers we have to engage with politicians and get this message across AND politicians have wake up and look at the long term – beyond their 5 year term of office.

Why oh why do we persist in seeking to justify the viability of wind energy? It’s time more investment & energy went into the development of wave energy. Much less obtrusive & based around a constant potential source of energy! Much more development may be necessary but surely we’re playing the long game here?

To tax the people and continue a failed and worthless energy program is immoral.

There is nothing green about the wind energy program.
It cost more energy to install and maintain these wind turbines than the total power/energy that they ever produce.

If wind energy from these turbines were a good economical idea, then many people / companies would be investing in the future of the program. As of right now, the government has to force or bribe companies to get involved.

Cancel the program(s) and turn it over to the private sector. If the technology is improved sufficiently, then maybe there will be investors.

I agree with everything said by the previous correspondents regarding subsidies and that they should not be paid for wind farms. The reason being; when the wind doesn’t blow they do not generate any electricity. We still have to have conventional power generation either by coal, atomic, gas or hydro-electricity. So why waste money on building wind farms that are at best estimated to be about 20% efficient. Concentrate on building conventional power stations only unless we want our lights to go out and industry and commerce come to a halt through lack of electricity. We have to stop living in the fantasy world that wind power generation is efficient and sensible just because it is green. It is not !

There seems to be a naive assumption amongst our community that only technology like wind and solar are receiving subsidies. Wake up! Coal and gas pump carbon into the atmosphere and we face the lottery of climate change as a result. Why aren’t they paying the true cost of this? Nuclear’s latest roll-out (the fifth such in the past 45 years) is only happening because of carbon floor pricing, long-term contracts and massive subsidies over the insurance risks, decommissioning and waste disposal. Of course wind costs need to come down – and they are. And yes the industry needs to start fighting its corner. Frankly if Donald Trump is opposing wind then that might just be a reason to support it – though Alex Salmond might be a bit compromised on that one!

Wind turbines are not a viable option.Not only are they inefficient in terms of wind force availability but their Achilles heel is the gearbox.
To achieve an input speed of 1500rpm into the generator, with the blades running at say 3 r.p.m, the gearbox oil must be cooled and filtered to such a level that unless regular maintenance is carried out failure is inevitable. We are never told about these hidden costs.

Trying to score cheap political points in a technical publication by misrepresenting what the MPs wrote is unworthy. Their foremost objection was to the level of subsidy of the inefficent and intermittent supply provided by on shore wind. When you also consider that many if not most of the on-shore capacity will be in Scotland where the Conservatives no longer have a strong base the political bias stands revealed.
Moving on, Denmark has a large installed base but has the advantage of being able to send excess peak generation across to Sweden or Norway for storage. We do not have that. In Germany in 2006, there were massive power outages caused in part by the wind generated power causing the grid to become unstable.
There are still huge technical problems with both the grid and storage that must be addressed before UK wind energy can be considered a safe and reliable large contributor.
You should concentrate on this and leave the politics to the general press.

The opposition to land based windfarms is not just about their looks. In upland areas of Britain, moorlands are often seen as ideal turbine sites. Yet many of these moors are formed from peat and particularly in the s Pennines may be recovering from 100 years of pollution from soot. Peat moorlands are the most important carbon reserve in Britain, actively sequestering carbon and storing vast quantities of carbon, more than all the woodlands in th UK. While we would never consider felling an oak woodland to install a wind farm, peat moorlands have been fair game. The massive infrastructure: 6 m wide access roads to transport huge loads to remote and innaccessible places, huge foundations requiring the excavation of 100’s of tons of peat and then the operation of the turbines themselves drying out the peat below, seems utter madness and certainly not worthy of subsidy.

It would be interesting to see a chart of who gets what in terms of subsidies. Research and development is generally expensive but when it pays off it can really improve the situation it was out to solve; and sometimes in ways that were not considered when the R&D effort began. Generally scale is quickly introduced to accomplish savings which can cause new challenges (such as the lubrication of these giant wind turbine bearings) which spawn new R&D challenges.
To hold a myopic view of subsidy receipt is to uphold a fraud. Let’s look at the big picture and think about what we’re providing for our offspring 7 generations into the future and fund that paradigm.
The Space Race in the US spawned an amazing amount of technological wonders.
I say we need to fund the future with blue/green technology R&D to create a livable future. Wind, Bio, waste to bio, the power of the tides, etc,.

The case for Wind power is already lost as being uneconomical and ineffective.

At the moment we are technically unable to build or operate with commercial reliability, the 300 meter high wind mills that are required.
We are 10 to 20 years away from usefully commercial sized, off shore wind farms.

The onshore alternative, is only suitable as a local addition to the existing distribution system for those who are prepared for, (and those who suffer), the visual impact.

Therefore, we must build base load stations that use energy sources which are free of the global trading pressures, as are oil and gas.
That only leaves coal and nuclear energy sources for base load generation.

These are the real choices of every society that is dependant on electricity, and no amount of ecological and environmental soppy chattering will change those facts.

Like it or lump it, nuclear power protected us from the cartels of oil and gas, (until we wasted our North Sea resources in less than 40 years), and coal gave us an industry that provided jobs, until they were traded for short term cheap imports from South America and Eastern Europe.

The only debate of merit, is do we want to share power black outs in the next few years or do we want reliable and affordable electricity for the future?
Who is going to win the argument, the informed or the soft option parties?

I for one want the reliable and affordable electricity for my grand children.
In whom, I will instil eternally gratitude, for the successful decision makers of the 50,s, who had the vision to understand difference between the reality and the dreams.

We have subsidised almost every other industry when the need was there aerospace in particular, motor industry etc. The offshore wind industry is taking off in all countries and not just EU – we will be missing an enormous opportunity for wealth creation and jobs if we let this opportunity go by. Other EU countries are offering large subsidies and grants to promote the wind industry – let the government encourage these companies to set up here or we will lose another job and wealth creation chance.

If the pressure is on to reduce environmental degredation, then it seems reasonable to tax energy producers in proportion to the TOTAL impact of their strategy. i.e. the effect of manufacture, servicing and energy production. Wind farms would not fare so well I fear. On the other hand, any producer which achieved environmental improvement would deserve a subsidy, as well as a huge thank you from the rest of the population.
The answer, of course is to waste less, but perhaps that is too obvious.

As usual the NIMBY’s and the Carbon Support Club are screaming with anxiety about an industry that provides (almost) free energy once the technology is in place. Every single NEW energy introduction has had to be subsidised in every single country in the world. Wind is no different, however, as identified above, it is not alone in receiving subsidies. In th last year carbon received over £4billion in subsidies to keep Big Energy co’s in profit in this distorted market, whereas wind received c. £1.5billion. Where does your subsidy argument end up now? Efficiency: Nuclear down times are regular and very expensive. The ‘true’ cost of Nuclear power is many times the cost of ALL other technologies. As for carbon, I shouldn’t need to say it, especially on an engineer’s forum but have any of you heard of Climate Change? Those of you climate denier trolls will obviously just throw tantrums but the fact is we are burning the planet and it can’t take any more. Get real. If you don’t like the cost, work on bringing them down instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In answer to the NIMBY’s, I’ll simply say, there will be no countryside for our children to enjoy unless we act urgently, so, I’m afraid, as your collective spokesperson has said many times, ‘we’re all in it together’, you will have to make your sacrifices as well.

I’m confused by all the comments complaining about wind subsidies. Oil, coal etc are a finite resource and as supplies dwindle they become expensive and more problematic to extract. So we need to transition onto something else pronto. This could be renewables, nuclear or both. And nuclear wouldn’t get off the starting blocks without huge public subsidies and a government willing to bail it out with more money later to help clean up the mess.

And as for comments complaining about this story including politics, OK so The Engineer’s expertise is technical not political, but this issue *is* political! Huge amounts of public money are at stake, as is our future safety, our climate and our energy security. Jobs rest on these decisions too. Personally I find it tragic that long-term decisions on energy are being made by politicians on short terms who care only about votes in the next few years, and think little about the long-term effect on their decisions on future generations.

I would implore anyone motivated by the subject of energy economics to review Chris Martenson’s ‘Crash Course’, David Morgan’s work for Tullet Prebon on ERoEI, Ernst & Young’s regular RECAI publication and the IEA’s work from October 2011 that stated “fossil fuel subsidies may reach $660bn by 2020”, “fossil fuel subsidies were $250bn in 2010” and that “renewable market subsidies are estimated to be $110bn in 2015”.

The points about peat moorland are well taken. A wind farm has a life of no more than 25 years, but the peat in this area is 3,000 to 4,000 years old, and substantial areas will be wrecked by the construction of a wind farm.

If trees had to be cut down for the construction of wind farms, there would be howls of protest: the silence over the destruction of peat is stunning.

The free market is not going to provide this country with a balanced generating industry that does not rely dangerously on a single fuel source. Most of the existing coal and nuclear stations will close in the next 10 years. We need a massive build programme to replace them starting now. The only kind of station that the private sector will build without subsidy is gas fired stations. Does anyone claim it would be good for security of supply and protection against the risk of massive price shocks to have 70% of our electricity coming from gas? We need an energy strategy in this country and this can only be brought together by the government. As the government likes to claim that the free market will solve everything it will need the fig leaf of subsidies to make it work. Left to its own devices the free market will barely look 3 months ahead let alone the 20 to 25 year life cycle of a power plant.

Whatever the state of fossil fuels, the truth is we simply can’t keep burning things. I’ve been to places where the pollution is so bad you can’t see the stars at night: it’s a stark warning.
Nuclear can certainly provide an interim solution, but its not exactly natural.
We all know that for any species to survive it must be in harmony with it’s environment. So perhaps it’s time we started working together, to develop all renewable resources, improve energy mangement and reduce wasteage. The best answers will surface without our arguing about it.
We can say thank you to fossil fuels for bringing us this far, but it’s time we take the knowledge we’ve gained and put it to good use for the future.

I find it sad that a Features editor of the Engineer would write such an article without doing at least some research into the subject !!

As I remember it, we started the ‘wind rush’ as a direct result of politicians making rash promises at Kyoto, with no knowledge of how to achieve the result – but windmills sound green ..so lets use them!!
So they picked a technology that is expensive, inefficient and unpredictable – these are the same ‘Green’ MPs who ride a bike to save the planet …..but need to be followed by a gas guzzling official limousine carrying a briefcase!

You mention –“the wind industry’s threats are somewhat worrying. Rather than explain the energy benefits of wind turbines,” … “to instantly threaten to pull out if the sweeteners of subsidy are withdrawn”
Maybe it’s because the subsidy’s are the only reason for them to be in the business, as wind farms are more about generating cash not kWs.

You mention Denmark, it has the greatest concentration of wind turbines / population, yet still only manages to produce 13% of its energy requirements by wind, and has not been able to close a single fossil fuel station.

You also mention capacity factors – the time spent producing its rated output.
British wind = aprox 26% (& we’re the windiest country in Europe)
Nuclear =90%
Hydro = 50%
Coal = 73%
Would you buy a car that only ran for 26% of the time, & that time was unpredictable, even if the fuel was free ??
As wind is so unreliable you need to have a vast spinning reserve (fossil fuel stations running inefficiently) to provide backup. (just like the MP on a bike )

The whole debacle of wind power in the UK is another political own goal that we end up paying for.

We should be concentrating on tidal power (at least it’s constant & predictable) & combine it with offshore wind utilizing the same sub sea grid.

I heard wind turbines generally do give back more useful energy over their life than is required to manufacture, maintain, recycle etc… But I have never calculated this myself.
Can we have some figures for large turbines please?

Generate electricity where it is needed from natural gas fed to almost the whole nation. This way the losses at and from the power stations are usefully employed as a heat source instead of going to waste.

CHP has been around a long time and now we have gas-powered fuel cells that promise even greater efficiency and convenience.

Compare the cost and efficiency of a new power station to a few million UK-manufactured fuel cells. Can someone do the sums? Is it a better than wind power, solar cells?

I agree with many of the other correspondents that wind power is overvalued because of lack of dependability and certainly should not be contemplated for more than 20% of demand.

However I must also disagree with the articles statement that wind turbines 3km offshore will be barely visble. Clearly the author lives in London or some other city where visibility rarely exceeds 2km whereas the clear Scottish air allows visibility to be up to 150km and things 30km away are generally very clear.

The cheapness of coal was never a factor when we wanted rid of coal for gas, have you looked at the price of a Kwh rise over the last few years? Why is nobody screaming about the £69 Billion nuclear decomisioning cost (about £4000 per taxpayer?) plus the cost of building, about double coal and around the same price to run. Nuclear is an excellent secure base load but not cheap. The wind subsidy also pays for back up gas generation so it still works on the odd day when the wind does not blow. Wind may not be Ideal but do you think the price gap will be quite so large with future gas prices ? It certainly stacks up well compared with Nuclear, but probably spoils a few more views. The no nuclear subsidy myth is pure cuckoo land.

I, for one, have always had my suspicions about ‘wind energy’ due to the fact that you can only generate power when the wind blows.

We are an island nation surrounded by tidal waters which present us with a wonderful opportunity to capture, at very little cost, its energy. This can be done by twin turbines mounted on a single pylon placed in the tidal flows acting both ways; one turbine with the incoming tidal flow and another turbine with the outgoing tidal flow. This would not blot the landscape or seascape because they would be mounted on small pylons, which will enable the turbines to be raised above the water level for servicing and the tops of which would be the only sign above water level.
We also are blessed with the UV from the sun, which again we, as a country, do not appear to be keen to harness. It shines UV light every day, even through the clouds, free of charge and with ongoing technology we could surely develop our UV energy much more.
Wind energy, either on land or sea can only generate power when the wind blows therefore sometimes no energy is produced, yet the Government stills seems intent on this form of power generation.
I am very suspicious of this, especially with the high subsidies applied to ‘wind power ‘and fear that there is a hidden agenda that they want these RENEWABLE energies to fail so that we have to turn to nuclear. This, of course, has inherent problems and dangers of security, development and decommissioning (largely an unknown technology- except for burying it in the ground).
I hope we can persuade the Government to put more resources, both financial and physical, into tidal and solar power as a true renewable form of energy. This would give our future generations chance to live in a much reduced carbon climate and a safer world.

I doubt whether Donald Trump is against Wind Energy as much as he is against the idea of seeing a wind turbine every time he looks out of his front room window. I can’t blame him. And it doesn’t have to be that way. As I read through the varying opinions, the one thing that strikes me the most is the short sighted impression that we have plenty of coal and natural gas to get us through. This is absolutely true for my generation and probably the next. But there are plenty of investigations that attempt to quantify the world supply of natural gas and coal. They aren’t infinite. In fact, it is just the opposite. According to a report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) (January 20, 2011), the supply of natural gas from conventional sources will carry us for about another 130 years, and if you add on the supply from unconventional sources like fracking, it is about double that. The supply of coal is far more vast, but according to another report issued by the IEA, the global recoverable coal reserves amount to about 200 years at current production rates. Based on these simple statistics alone, you can make your own conclusions, but mine is that there is an urgent need to invest in the development of renewable energy sources; and whether you agree or not, wind provides one of the very best options as a renewable source of energy. The thing that people need to keep in mind is that the Technology to harness wind is really a work in process. And during any period of intense development, subsidies are key to sustain the efforts. Let me give you a couple examples of developments that are game changers. Offshore wind is by far a better location to capture wind energy. The wind is more constant and very laminar. The problem with off-shore wind is that up until recently, it was either near shore or close-to-shore in shallow moorings, making it tough for Donald Trump and other folks who are lucky enough to live on the coast to embrace wind turbines. But one of the largest efforts in the wind industry is to develop a cost effective way to provide deep water moorings which will make it possible for the offshore farms to be located further offshore and out of sight. Its reality – go visit “Windfloat” and you will discover what I mean. Secondly, there are arguments that wind has a low capacity factor because the wind is intermittent. In other words, when the wind isn’t blowing you can’t generate power, and sometimes when the wind is blowing very hard, the grid simply doesn’t need it so the power is sent back to ground – wasted. So the logical answer to this is to develop energy storage systems. R&D in this area is vital and already we are seeing very promising results in various forms such as Flow Batteries, flywheels, compressed air and another from the UK which is able to store potential energy right at the power station in the form of liquefied air. All of these storage technology systems have the potential to increase the capacity of the wind turbine dramatically, making it an extremely viable option with much faster economic payback. So I would simply ask that the development of Wind Energy Technology be given its fair shot, just as all the other energy producing technologies were given as they came up to par. We need the electricity that Wind Technology can provide in varying degrees around the world today, but it becomes a critical issue for our future generations no matter where. So like I say above, large scale wind technology is still a work- in-process which needs to given its fair chance.

There is no doubt that wind turbines are not a total answer, and that it is not the only power source with subsidies. I think the non-barrage approach was a huge mistake and that wave power is being sidelined.

Also bear in mind that water is also being looked at for generating electricity where the difference in salinity between river and sea water creates potential.[Holland]

There is a difference in heat between the bottom of lochs and ambient temperatures which could be used.

And of course geothermal surely should be further investigated. Solar water heating via households would reduce considerably the load/usage coal and gas.

The Japanese have some remarkable results from a move to heat exchangers heavily pushed by the Japanese Governemnt.

And finally surely the ideal is to reduce power consumption as is happening with lighting. !

Strange how those who are adamant that wind energy is fundamentally flawed always seem to use subsidies as a demonstration of their failure. This is despite the recently released and well publicised OECD report showing that fossil fuels benefit from far higher subsidies than any form of renewable energy production. It’s such a shame that wind turbines seem so emotive in the UK to the point where we can no longer have rational discussion about them without revisiting the same tired old cliches.

I live on Anglesey, (now dubbed the “Energy Island”) within sight of 34 wind-turbines, fortunately up-wind & far enough away so I’m not affected by the noise or flicker (so I’m all right jack).
As I write this we approach the 1800hr power peak, not one is generating (which I’ve noted over 12 yrs, is often the case, no wind = no power, lots of wind = shut down)…. again, they just stand as monu-MENTAL follies.
…And we pay them, for not producing – in Sept 2011, the grid paid Fred Olson £1.2M to stop production at Crystal Rigg for 13hrs !!!. nice.

Why are we investing so heavily in a technology that only works 26% of the time – when, if as the purveyors of wind energy insist, climate change (the reason for building turbines) is bringing more extreme weather patterns… which means the turbines will produce less… it’s a very strange logic.

Wave power is another form of wind power, but it‘s not only unpredictable, it‘s very difficult to extract meaningful amounts of power economically.

BUT
In the UK, usable tidal currents run 65% of the time and slack tide in one area is ALWAYS counteracted by full tide elsewhere, so as long as the moon stays in the sky we can have a reliable, predictable, renewable, blue/green power.

So are the British movers & shakers investing in that …NO,
for instance:- The British Co who successfully demonstrated a practical scheme 2003 & proposed the Skerries Tidal Stream Array 6yrs ago (still waits for the government go-ahead) http://seagenwales.co.uk/ has now been acquired by…. Siemens.

Why do we leave important decisions to know nothing politicians ??? They can’t even be trusted to keep their fingers out of the till, so why would we trust them with our future ??

In reply to Tim’s message on the 1st of March about the energy payback from wind turbines the answer is between 3 and 16 months depending who you believe and what method you use in calculating. There is a critique of some of the analysis used in a paper at http://www.rogerhelmer.com/sustainability.pdf, but the bottom line is that the payback is definitely positive and less thatn 2 years.

In terms of the statements that wind is expensive this is simply wrong. The average cost of generating electricity from onshore wind is now around 3-4p per kilowatt hour, competitive with new coal (2.5-4.5p) and cheaper than new nuclear (4-7p)

The cost of generating electricity from wind has fallen dramatically over the past few years. Between 1990 and 2002, world wind energy capacity doubled every three years and with every doubling prices fell by 15%. Wind energy is presently competitive with new coal and new nuclear capacity, even before any hidden/undisclosed environmental costs of fossil fuel and nuclear generation & disposal are taken into account.

As to some of the comments made about them not working: In Orkney wind has been embraced and since August wind has supplied 77% of our electical demand. This is a reliable and integrated system and it works.

Load factors are around 35% and actually a lot higher than a lot of other technology. Cars are used around 2 hours a day so that would be 8%, TVs 4 hours. The challenge is it being available at the point you need it, but this is not presently proving to be a big isse.

There is, of course, an challenge with intermittency, but with an effective harvesting and storage strategy this can be accommodated. This will involve both load shedding, peak lopping, storage and most importantly energy efficiency. Alternatively we can use gas to fill in the gaps between wind harvests. We could do this now.

All in all I remain surprised that such a benign technology seems to arouse such indignation and ire. Unfortunately this is the price that has been paid by disruptive technologies in their day (such as canals, railways, the telegraph etc. etc). Provided we can rationally sort out the fact from the fiction I am sure we will find a way to keep the lights on.

In response to EH Lawrence’s posting. The figure of ‘20% efficiency’ is wrong on several levels:

1. The maximum efficiency of energy that can be extracted from the flow is set by the ‘Betz Limit’ of around 40%.

2. Wind turbines generate electricity around 70% of the time, but deliver their plate rating around 35% of the time in the north of scotland and offshore. Badly sited turbines in the south may have lower figures. This is the ‘Load Factor’ not efficiency.

In terms of efficiency of other machines then it is well worth understanding what we put up with otherwise. There is a great talk by Amory Lovins on TED.com which shows that we put up with a machine that is under 1% efficient. (7/8 of energy in teh fuel is lost as heat in the engine, noise and losses. Of the 1/8 (13%), half is lost as rolling resistance and 1% heats up the air as it is pushed aside. The remaining 6% moves the car. BUT the car is not the product we are trying to move. We are trying to move the driver, who is around 1/20th of the mass of the car, so basically 1/20th of 6% is doing useful work……. now THAT is inefficient!

I for one will be interested in peoples views on this 2 year from now.

Gas is best kept for manufacture of liquid fuels, for which we will in the coming years see a crisis in terms of supply, due to peak oil, and depleting resources.

Nuclear we will need, but it’s going to take a long time to build. Against a backdrop of spiraling energys costs, wind will begin to look pretty cheap. (Things don’t get developed unless they get funded now).

I think tidal is great, but we will need subsidies to make it happen, and it will take us 10 to 20 years to develop it. We have lots o research programs, but it’s early days, and things take time.

I think the comments about not subsidising things are fool hardy. There are few with sufficient piles of money to develop a large scale product at risk. It may happen via the market if we wait for an energy shock, and shortages, personally I think that’s a pretty rubbish way of managing energy security.

As to the guy that mentioned the gearbox as the achilies heal, what about the turbines that are direct drive without a gearbox like all the Enercon machines for example?

Furthermore it’s not that big a deal to filter oil, and use it to cool a gearbox, it is after all what happens in car, and they seem pretty reliable.

Wind adds 0% to base generating load even if you cover the whole country with them, you therefore have to maintain conventional capacity at 100% of maximum load. Who will want to own and operate a power station who will only be required to switch it on when the wind stops blowing? Ahhh! perhaps another subsidy could help.
Oh and you only have to further ruin the countryside with increased industrialisation (remember the greenbelt intrusions, the connifers and all the grubbed out hedgerows) any one think these were a good idea now?

To strengthen on Anonymous’s comment: Wave power is a real alternative option for offshore – better at supporting base loads, easier to install and not such an eyesore either. But, there is a bigger picture here and wind turbines should only be considered as part of the solution, perhaps only a temporary one. Lets not forget that solar power is also more viable than ever. But probably most importantly: linked in with renewables is the energy storage issue – if the government gave half of its wind farm subsidy to cracking the energy storage issue (importantly cheap small scale hydrogen production and storage) then not only would the UK become a world leader boosting our economy, but the full potential of all renewables would be released.

The problem with not subsidising potentially useful new technologies is that without subsidised market penetration they may well never achieve a level of maturity that would allow them to challenge existing technologies which have built upon decades, if not hundreds of years of development. Much of the early development of, for example, coal fired power generation, would not be permitted now. Pollution levels and the death rate in mining at those times would not be permitted nowadays, so, if we didn’t have it already, we would no longer be able to develop coal-fired power generation. I’d recommend anyone to read Otto Frisch’s brilliant short sci fi story “On the feasibility of coal driven power stations”, set in a world where uranium is running out.
Every development is expected to have learned the expensive lessons of every previous development applied to its own field, and this simply is not possible. The coal fired power argument is one; transport is another. Imagine no aeroplanes had been developed, but we had all our other forms of transport. It would verge on the impossible to develop at the first attempt with pivate money, an aircraft capable of intercontinental passenger travel (that being the only vaguely effective form of air travel), especially as air travel would not then get its massive fuel subsidy, infrastructure, etc, etc. The same argument would apply to railways- they could not be developed from scratch today, neither could the automotive.
So, do not criticise subsidies per se, but feel free to criticise facile and dishonest targets.
The problem is- who can tell the future winners ? Without some form of incentive, these major game changers would not occur. Robert Heinlein’s story “Breakages, Inc” is also one to read on this matter.
We must look at fundamental technology changes in a number of areas to answer our problems. Perhaps we shouldn’t be subsidising electric or fuel cell cars for the wealthy second car owning city dweller, but should be ensuring the development of the missing technology links-credible battery technology for the one and green electricity to crack hydrogen for the other- the Systems may need the input. Although in this case, as the automotive industry pays itself so well (the US Auto Industry Chairmen turning up in their corporate jets with begging bowls is an image that won’t die), that may not be an example where ANY subsidy should apply.
Trouble is, we need technologically competent govenments and reduced vested interests to achieve anything.

I have no problem with new technology being subsidised as long as the subsidy is reinvested to further the development. However, with landowners clamouring to offer up their land for wind farms it is clear that the subsidies are going straight to the bottom line and out into the shareholders pockets. Threatening to reduce the subsidy has flushed this out.

Larger pumped storage – Interesting idea Peter, but storage is not a producer of power, so the scale of a storage scheme has to be linked the required capacity (ie amount of proposed surplus produced intermittently.) This is likely to be relatively small for the forseeable future and so investors will concentrate on value for money tomorrow rather than strategic potential value the day after. However, the Scots geography and geology may be useful for tidal entrapments, which could operate as combined generators and pumped storage doubling the utility. Mining granite for construction of barrages etc could be also used to create useful void space to store the potential energy in water.

I am surprised at the number of superficial comments about the financial subsidies of wind power, when a little thought and research will show that other forms of power generation are also subsidised, to a far greater extent. Added to the direct subsidy, free insurance, free pollution licences and tax breaks enjoyed by nuclear and fossil fuel generators, there is the £43 billion cost of the Uk defence budget, a large proportion of which is applied to protecting our energy interests…….in the face of this, Wind is unarguably cheap, and will become cheaper as more is installed. Unlike Nuclear with its unquantifiable down stream costs, it is stoppable and reversible.

Dont trust me on this – take a look at Bloomberg report – G-20 nations spent $160 billion supporting the production and consumption of fossil fuels last year, led by Saudi Arabia’s outlay of $44 billion, the IEA said in its World Energy Outlook. Iran spent the most overall, shelling out $81 billion to support fuel sales.
Onshore wind generators will become competitive without subsidies by 2020 in Europe and by 2030 in China, the agency predicted. In the U.S., where the cost of power is reduced by new supplies of shale gas produced by Chesapeake Energy Corp. (CHK) and ConocoPhillips (COP), wind turbines will need aid until at least 2035.
All other renewable energy sources will also need support for at least 25 years, with total payments projected to reach $250 billion annually by 2035….

No -one is mentioning the maintenance costs of these wind turbines. Especially offshore the cost of maintenance is prohibitive. The marine environment is much harsher than overland and I will be surprised if these turbines do not need replacing all too soon. I have not seen any evidence that the true cost of turbine maintenance and replacement has been factored in to the calculations on cost effectiveness and carbon footprint.

All this ranting about subsidy for wind, what about the massive subsidies that the nuclear industry has had over the years and still recieves,
The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority cost £6.9bn last year out of the public purse.

“it’s folly to think that we can generate all our energy from renewables;”
– says you, Stuart.

We can and we should. It’ll take a lot of investment in hydroelectric pumped storage schemes to store surplus wind energy for when the wind is becalmed but it can be done.]”

Sorry have I missed something ??? What surplus wind energy ???

Last time I looked (1 hr ago) the entire UK wind machines (all 3622 of them) were producing less than 0.5% of demand & the wind farm I can see hasn’t moved in 4 days.
The average annual contribution of wind is less than 6% so where is this surplus wind energy ??? I havent seen any !!
John

Wind and other “Green” energy producing technologies are good but overprised and the primary motive to compoanies is to capitalise on the subsidies. They present complecated and expensive projects and technology at forbitting costs. This is not the way to go at all and the EU and goverments must reconsider the whole approach to the matter. I suggest that
1. subsities is given to Universities to research and find cheap methods of producing “Green” energy that will be easily implemented by any engineering company.
2. The wind farms are used only to produce fuel from the CO2 in the atmosphere. ( No need to be connecrted to the grid)
3. I have no figures but I suspect that the UK can cover all the energy needs, export electrical power and manufacture fuel from CO2 by using the tidal energy.
This can be done in less than 5 years if this is the sole target and not just an excuse for some companies to capitalise on.

Are we still not missing the point that we should be generating locally and with that i mean solar panels mixed with wind generators on our house roofs with inverters and battery storage this would make each of us responsible for our own usage and the ablity to store our own energy this also reduces the need to have massive back power generation when the wind stops blowing at the very times you most need it ie mid winter in still air cold snaps, what about local power generation burning waste refuse this has been forgoten again mean while we are looking for any hole in the ground to fill with a usable product, subsidies dont work and never have, just look at setaside created by the EU you just cant pay people to payed to do nothing, we must start producing locally what ever it is to be efficient…

Everyone here assumes the present peaceful environment. That is naive. I recall an old scheme to obtain all of the UK’s energy from geothermal sources in Iceland. That would have meant that the entire UK could have been paralyzed, in case of aggression, by cutting just one cable. Cutting the cable from France would already be effective. A wise nation should have ‘hardened’ self-sufficient energy supplies; not wispy manifestations of some bucolic Hippy dream.